get_creative_performance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose details like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'performance statistics' entail (e.g., metrics, format). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is front-loaded but overly brief, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity, as it lacks elaboration that could aid agent selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of performance statistics and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'creatives' refers to, what statistics are returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively without trial and error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get performance statistics for creatives,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'performance statistics for creatives,' but does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_campaign_performance' or 'get_zone_performance,' leaving ambiguity about scope and distinctions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for specific creative types or how it differs from other performance-related tools like 'get_performance_report' or 'compare_periods.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.